Rennae Stubbs proposes major Grand Slam change after Djokovic's marathon: replace the fifth set with a super tie-break
Rennae Stubbs, the former world No. 1 in doubles and a coach who worked with Serena Williams, has opened a debate about one of the most recognizable features of men's Grand Slam tennis. After Novak Djokovic spent five hours and 15 minutes on court against Felix Auger-Aliassime in the Wimbledon quarterfinals, and then offered significantly less resistance in the semifinals to the visibly fresher Jannik Sinner, Stubbs suggested that in best-of-five-set matches, a full fifth set should no longer be played at 2-2. Instead, the winner would immediately be decided by a super tie-break to 10 points, with a mandatory margin of two points.
She presented the proposal on her tennis podcast during a discussion about match duration, the quality of the closing stages of the biggest tournaments and the imbalance that can arise when one semifinalist reaches the final stages after a series of shorter contests, while the other arrives after a physically extremely demanding marathon. Stubbs believes that four full sets would preserve most of the tactical and physical depth of the traditional Grand Slam format, while the final tie-break would limit extreme strain that can affect the next match. As the latest example, she cited Djokovic's journey from a historic quarterfinal to defeat against Sinner. At the same time, she did not claim that fatigue was the only explanation for the semifinal result: she acknowledged that Sinner's level of play and the fact that Djokovic, at the age of 39, is in a significantly different phase of his career were also important factors.
Five hours and 15 minutes that changed the picture of the closing stages
Wimbledon's official website states that Djokovic defeated Auger-Aliassime on July 7, 2026, by a score of 7-6 (10), 3-6, 6-3, 6-7 (4), 7-6. The match lasted five hours and 15 minutes and became the longest men's quarterfinal in the history of the tournament. It ended at 10:52 p.m. local time, just eight minutes before the mandatory end of play at 11 p.m. Djokovic secured the victory in the deciding fifth-set tie-break after an evening in which both players repeatedly went through periods of complete parity on the scoreboard.
The previous quarterfinal record was held by Rainer Schüttler and Arnaud Clément, whose 2008 encounter lasted five hours and 12 minutes. The new record was even more significant because of Djokovic's age and the intensity of the rallies with Auger-Aliassime, one of the physically strongest players on the ATP Tour. Wimbledon organizers announced that the Serbian player had reached his 55th Grand Slam semifinal and his 15th semifinal at the All England Club with that triumph. After the match, he spoke openly about his exhaustion and emphasized that it would have been easier if such a long contest had been the final, because he then would not have had to think about how his body would recover for the next obstacle.
In its semifinal preview, Wimbledon calculated that Djokovic had spent approximately 16 and a half hours on court up to that point, about three hours and 15 minutes more than Sinner. Such a difference does not determine the outcome in advance, but it is important in a sport in which recovery between matches consists of sleep, nutrition, physiotherapy, treatments and very precise workload management. Two calendar days off between the quarterfinal and semifinal can help, but they cannot always erase the consequences of a five-hour match, especially when the player is in the late stage of his career. That context is precisely the foundation of Stubbs' argument: in the closing stages of a Grand Slam, the audience wants to watch the best players as close as possible to their full physical and technical level, rather than a contest in which one of them is significantly limited by a previous marathon.
Sinner was better, and fatigue is not the only explanation
Jannik Sinner defeated Djokovic on July 10 by 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. Wimbledon's official report described the world No. 1's performance as a combination of precise serving, aggressive groundstrokes and constant pressure that narrowed his opponent's options. The Italian took the initiative early, rarely allowed Djokovic to establish a rhythm in the rallies and controlled the key phases of all three sets. The result therefore cannot be reduced solely to the defeated player's physical condition.
After the match, Djokovic summarized his performance and his entire tournament for the ATP by saying that it had been "good, but not good enough." It was his second consecutive defeat to Sinner in the Wimbledon semifinals, after the Italian had also beaten him in 2025. Following this year's encounter, the ATP stated that Sinner now leads their head-to-head series 7-5 and has won six of their last seven meetings. That shows that the semifinal also contained a clear sporting component that goes beyond the question of scheduling and recovery.
A few days later, Sinner confirmed his level of play by successfully defending the Wimbledon title. In the final on July 12, he defeated Alexander Zverev 6-7 (7), 7-6 (2), 6-3, 6-4 after three hours and 46 minutes. His path to the trophy further supports Stubbs' caveat that Djokovic did not lose only because he was tired. Nevertheless, the fact that Sinner faced an opponent in the semifinal with a noticeably greater cumulative workload remains relevant to the broader debate over whether the format of the biggest tournaments should reduce the likelihood that a previous marathon decisively shapes the next round.
What would actually change under Stubbs' model
Under the current rules, men's singles matches at Grand Slam tournaments are played as best-of-five sets. If the score after four sets is 2-2, a full fifth set is played. Only when the score in that deciding set reaches 6-6 in games does a tie-break to 10 points follow, with the winner required to hold a lead of at least two points. That is exactly how the match between Djokovic and Auger-Aliassime ended.
Stubbs proposes a much deeper change. Under her model, there would be no fifth set of six or more games at 2-2; instead, a super tie-break to 10 would begin immediately. Four completed sets would remain a full demonstration of technical, tactical and physical quality, but the final decision would be concentrated into a shorter sequence of points. Such a model could shorten the longest matches by dozens of minutes, and sometimes by more than an hour, while making scheduling easier for organizers, offering television partners more predictable program lengths and giving players more time to recover.
It is important, however, to distinguish that proposal from the rule already applied by the Grand Slams. In 2022, the four biggest tournaments jointly introduced a uniform final tie-break to 10 points at 6-6 in the deciding set. The Grand Slam Board explained at the time that the objective was to harmonize the rules of the Australian Open, Roland-Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open and to improve the experience of players and audiences. Before that decision, the tournaments had different methods of concluding the final set, and some allowed play to continue until one player gained a two-game advantage. Stubbs is now proposing a further step: not merely limiting the end of the fifth set, but eliminating it entirely.
Arguments for a shorter end to the match
The most important argument in favor of such a change concerns the quality of the later rounds. A Grand Slam lasts two weeks, and the men's champion must win seven matches. A player who goes through several five-set contests in earlier rounds can reach the semifinal or final with many more hours on court than his opponent. The draw is naturally unpredictable and that element can never be completely removed, but a shorter deciding finish would reduce the greatest extremes.
The second argument is health and workload management. No format change would eliminate injuries, but fewer prolonged deciding sets could reduce acute exhaustion, especially in hot or highly humid conditions. This could also be important for older players and for those entering the closing stages after several physically demanding rounds. Stubbs' example involving Djokovic is particularly powerful precisely because he is one of the best-prepared and most successful tennis players in history, a player known for his endurance and ability to recover.
The third argument is scheduling. Wimbledon warns on its official website that the duration of best-of-five-set matches is difficult to predict and that two long men's contests can occupy almost an entire day's program on one court. A shorter finish would reduce the risk of late conclusions, the postponement of other matches and problems connected with local restrictions, such as the mandatory end of play at the All England Club. In the case of Djokovic and Auger-Aliassime, the organizers were only a few minutes away from a situation in which the match would have had to be suspended and resumed the following day.
Why part of the tennis world would oppose it
The best-of-five-set format has been a foundation of men's Grand Slam identity for decades. Its supporters believe that the fifth set is not an unnecessary addition, but the final test of endurance, concentration, adaptation and mental resilience. Many of the most celebrated matches in the history of the sport came about precisely because, after four sets, the players had to find a new tactical and physical reserve. Completely removing the fifth set would change the type of player rewarded by the format.
A super tie-break also increases the importance of a very small number of points. One double fault, a bad bounce or a brief lapse in concentration can decide a match after several hours of evenly balanced play. In a full fifth set, there is more time to correct mistakes, recover a lost serve and develop the final tactical story. Critics could therefore argue that Stubbs' model produces better physical condition in the next round, but at the same time reduces the reliability of determining who was better during the deciding phase of the current match.
There is also the issue of tradition and commercial value. Marathon encounters attract enormous attention, create historic moments and distinguish the Grand Slams from most other tournaments, where men's matches are played as best-of-three sets. Organizers would have to assess whether greater predictability and better protection of the quality of the closing stages would outweigh the loss of drama provided by a full fifth set. Such a decision would not be merely a technical change to the scoring system, but a redefinition of one of the central features of the most important tournaments.
The debate also includes the difference between the men's and women's formats
Stubbs' proposal emerged during a discussion with Caitlin Thompson about whether women should play best-of-five-set matches in the closing rounds of Grand Slams. Thompson advocated longer women's matches from the quarterfinals or semifinals onward, arguing that such a format could provide more room for comebacks and reduce the likelihood of very short conclusions. Stubbs disagreed and, instead of expanding the format, proposed a compromise involving four full sets and a final tie-break.
According to a Tennis365 report, Stubbs assessed that women's best-of-five-set matches could in some cases last even longer because, on average, they produce fewer direct points from the serve than men's matches on grass. Her broader argument is therefore not directed only at Djokovic, but at finding a format that would retain the major sporting significance of a Grand Slam without unlimited growth in physical strain. Nevertheless, any idea of bringing the men's and women's formats closer together would open additional questions about equality, scheduling, television time and the way different disciplines are valued.
A change would require a decision by the Grand Slam Board
The rules of the four biggest tournaments are administered by the Grand Slam Board, while the International Tennis Federation publishes the official Rules of Tennis and the Grand Slam rulebook. For that reason, an individual comment by a coach or television analyst, regardless of her experience, cannot directly change the format. Such a move would require a coordinated decision by the organizers of the Australian Open, Roland-Garros, Wimbledon and the US Open, as well as a precise definition of how it would be applied in men's, women's and other competitions.
Stubbs enters the debate with substantial tennis authority. As a player, she was the world's No. 1 in doubles, won six Grand Slam titles in women's and mixed doubles, and later worked as a coach and analyst. Her official biography lists collaborations with Serena Williams, Samantha Stosur and Karolína Plíšková. Her proposal is therefore not merely a fan's reaction to a single result, but the position of someone who has observed Grand Slam tennis from the roles of player, coach and commentator.
According to publicly available information up to July 15, 2026, the Grand Slam Board has not announced that it is considering the immediate introduction of a format that would replace the fifth set with a super tie-break at 2-2. However, history shows that rules can be changed when organizers agree that greater consistency, safety or predictability is needed. The introduction of a shared tie-break at 6-6 in the deciding set in 2022 already demonstrated that even the most traditional elements of the Grand Slam format are not untouchable.
Djokovic's marathon against Auger-Aliassime and his convincing defeat to Sinner several days later will therefore probably remain one of the central examples in the debate about the future of men's Grand Slam tennis. That sequence of events does not prove that a shorter format would have changed the semifinal winner, nor does it diminish Sinner's superiority and subsequent title victory. It does, however, show how much the outcome of one major match can affect the quality of the next and how difficult it is to reconcile the tradition of the fifth set with the expectation that the final stages of a tournament should bring together the best players in the best possible condition.
Sources:
- Tennis365 – report on Rennae Stubbs' proposal and the debate about the possible abolition of the full fifth set (link)
- Wimbledon – official report on the record-breaking quarterfinal between Djokovic and Auger-Aliassime (link)
- Wimbledon – official report on the semifinal between Sinner and Djokovic (link)
- ATP Tour – Djokovic's reaction after his defeat in the 2026 Wimbledon semifinal (link)
- Wimbledon – official report on Sinner's successful title defense in the final against Zverev (link)
- International Tennis Federation – 2026 Rules of Tennis and the provision on the 10-point tie-break in the deciding set (link)
- Australian Open / Grand Slam Board – joint 2022 decision on the final-set tie-break at all four Grand Slam tournaments (link)
- Rennae Stubbs – official biography with information about her playing, coaching and media career (link)